“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer.

In their annual attempt to convince us that global warming is causing extreme weather, the AMS, with the help of the Met Office’s Peter Stott, has published the latest propaganda.

There is no mention, of course, of all the extreme weather events which did not happen last year, such as another quiet Atlantic hurricane season, lack of tornadoes, not to mention all of the places which did not flood or have droughts. Or that some of these occurrences may have been due to global warming.

It is important to realise that all of these case studies are reliant solely on “models”, and therefore need to be taken with a large pinch of salt.

I will look at some of the studies in another post, but first it is worth looking at some of the weather events that they could not blame on global warming:

The reduced daily temperature variability should not come as any surprise, although it destroys the “extreme temperature” myth.

The summary links this to a reduction in the polar-equator temperature gradient.

————————————————————

What “global warming hiatus”? Didn’t they get the memo?

————————————————————

This was, of course, Slingo’s favoured explanation. In any event, there is absolutely no evidence that the warming in the Pacific was “anthropgenic-induced”, as there is no known mechanism as to how GHG can warm parts of the ocean in isolation from others.

They conclude:

————————————————————

It was nature wot done it! (Of course, if they had bothered looking at 1929/30 they would have found exactly the same sort of conditions, which led to even wetter weather, and for four months and not three).

But contrast their conclusions about the shorter duration extremes,

Figures 10.2b,d,f illustrate the effect of human influence on extreme rainfall for synoptic conditions similar to 2013/14. The ALL and NAT (highcorrelation) ensembles are not distinguishable for both DJF and R10x based on Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests (p values greater than 0.2). However, a minor (not statistically significant) shift to wetter conditions due to anthropogenic forcings is identified for R10x, translating to an increase in the chances of getting an extreme event by a factor of about seven.

[R10x is defined as an index for shorter events (R10x), defined as the wettest period during the year over 10 consecutive winter days]

with the Met Office news bulletin on the AMS Report,

The first shows a link between global warming and the exceptional UK rainfall of the winter 2013/14. It found that, under the same weather pattern (a persistent westerly flow), extreme rainfall over 10 consecutive winter days is now seven times more likely than in a world without man-made greenhouse gas emissions. This is in line with initial Met Office research which we published in February 2014.

So the report finds only a minor, not statistically significant shift to wetter conditions for 10-day extremes. But the Met Office blatantly misrepresent this, giving the false impression that such events are now much more likely. This is breathtakingly dishonest.

Related

The term “climate change” has now become synonymous with “weather” and it is never questioned in the MSM.
From now on, I expect confirmation bias to take control, and we will be inundated by reports of “climate change” causing every weather event which takes place whether “extreme” or not.

From the abstract above: “In general, when attribution assessments fail to find anthropogenic signals, this alone does not prove anthropogenic climate change did not influence the event.”

WOW! We are guilty until proven innocent and if proof of innocence is not forthcoming we should be punished anyway. Sounds like medieval times when the accused was submerged and if he died he was innocent, if he lived he was guilty. Welcome to the modern day inquisition.

I look forward to any other articles you may print further debunking the Met Office junk science from Peter Stott. His contribution to science has been infinitesimal. Statistical ignorance on a breath taking scale.

The 2014 US National Climate Assessment tried to play the same increasing extremes game. Every single one of their summary chpter examples was shredded in essay Credibility Conundrums in my ebook. BAMS now suffers the same credibility conundrum.

I had another look at CET tonight, comparing it with local Greenwich data to 1850. I found that the year 1921 was a (relatively) greater anomaly, at 1.3C, than both 1990 and 1999.
2014 was a warm year but it was only greater than the 1981-2010 average by 1C.

The climate of London has also gradually decopuled from CET since 1910 – probably mostly due to UHI.

A bit off topic, but I had to laugh when I heard the weather forecast this morning going on about Storm Abigail expected tomorrow. Considering, as reported in the Daily Telegraph last Friday “Storm Abigail, named by the Met Office following a public consultation – is expected to sweep in from the Atlantic tomorrow.” Now let me think, that would be last Saturday.

So is the Storm Abigail named in the forecast today really Abigail 2 or a rebirth of Abigail or indeed Benjamin or whatever name is next on the list.

Or are they being misleading by getting it wrong last weekend and starting the Storm season again.

Which it isn’t – just a normal straight-forward autumn depression. We already have the German system for naming winter storms. And the Weather Channel will have its two penneth by finding some little-known saint (remember St Jude?) to name a storm. It is daft idea, the set-up money of which could have been used better elsewhere in the Met Office.

A recent (2015) paper in Theoretical Applied Climatology “Temporal evolution of Hudson Bay Sea Ice (1971–2011)” by Kowal & Gough1 & Butler shows a general decline in Hudson Bay sea ice through this period. Crockford’s information of no sea ice trend in WHB was consistent with previous reports, but this paper suggests that the rate of sea ice decline may actually be increasing in Hudson Bay, including WHB. Recent polar bear population surveys do not support a decline in polar bears in any of the three subpopulations that utilize Hudson Bay.